Canon 28-135 IS lens

[suhaskulkarni]

Hi,

 

I need advice on buying 28-135 IS lens.

 

I need the lens for general photgraphy - architectural interiors,

exteriors, landscapes and some portraits. I occasionaly submit images

for publishing and the publisher normally enlarges it upto 8"x12"

 

The issue is, I read almost 100's of reviews of this lens and most of

the reviews give conclusions which are two extreme ends. Almost 60%

people say this is a great lens and other 40% say this is crap. The

more reviews I read the more I get confused. For example on

fredmiranda.com website some people have rated the lens as 5

(excellent) while many of them rated it 1 (the lowest rating). Those

who rated low say that it is very soft and IS breaks after some days.

 

Well, may be I am inviting more confusion - but can those who have

used this lens comment on the quality please?

 

regards,

Suhas

[suhaskulkarni]

Forgot to mention, I use a film camera and shoot mostly slides

[randy_almquist]

i have owned this lens for over a year and shoot mostly scenics and landscapes, but do some of the kids and vacations. i also have the 75-300 IS the 50 1.8 and the 18-55. i use the 28 135 almost all the time and always get good results, IS works perfect and i never use a tripod as i am usually hiking and dont want to slow down for tripod setup. the only problem you might run into is doing interior work the lens is pretty slow. however that is easily overcome by changing iso on my dreb. plus for 350-400 bucks its a great all around IS lens

[qld]

It is depend on your expectaion of the pictures. For example if you expect your pictures turn out super sharp then you need a L zoom lens. If you expect your pictures turn out average sharp then 28-135mm is a right lens for you. I have the early Canon 28-105 lens and I am ok with but when I compare the images from the 28-105 with my Canon 17-40mm L F4 or Canon 100 F2 prime lens then you see the difference between the lenses.

For a $400 lens, I think it is not worth it. It better off to buy used lens.

Quan

[les]

I second the above. 28-135 is very good at focal lengths from about 40 to 100, and not to bad elsewhere. IS works just fine.

[WM]

Suhas, the 28-135 is a nice lens, and IMHO is a very capable lens, with a nice reach in the long end and I find that very useful at times. Unfortunately it is slow at f5.6 at the long end.

 

If you can sacrifice a bit of the long end, and don't want to break the bank (e.g. Canon 24-70/2.8L), the Tamron 28-75/2.8 might be worth exploring.......?

[beauh44]

Hi Suhas, I own the 28-135 IS and can give you my opinion. It's a good lens - not great - but good. It has strong points (IS) and weak points - it's not very fast wide-open. It's a good carry-around lens too. I've found it to be (for me) a fine lens to use in a studio where I can control the lighting. I found it a bit lacking for nature photography as I can absolutely tell the difference between it and either my prime lenses or "L" glass. The lens has never given me any trouble mechanically. I think it'll make fine 8X12" prints but I personally wouldn't go much bigger. So I think the answer lies somewhere in between - it's certainly not crap, nor is it a 70-200mm f/2.8 IS either. Best wishes . . .

[suhaskulkarni]

Thanks for the replies, and they are mostly positive, so I feel confident about buyong the lens.

I would not go for Tamron as I am particularly interested in IS function. Thanks for the suggestion anyways.

Will wait for some more time to see more replies - if any

[edward_dayoan]

I've used the lens for about a year now. I bought it used at a good price and I have to say that I would not hesitate to buy it again, even at the full price. It certainly does not give me as sharp a picture as the "L" lens I have borrowed in the pass, but the pictures are very good nonetheless. I think it is well worth the price.

[charlie_vigue]

Unless you're willing to stop it down it's quite soft. Don't get me wrong, I have one and I use it a lot, but it's not a 'L' by any means. It's not really big, it's got excellent range in the zoom. But it's slow, soft at anything much below f8 and so forth. If I have to choose a single lens for a day, this is often it, but if I have the luxury of knowing what more exactly what I will need I'll try to use a better lens instead.

 

In short, a jack of all trades, master of none.

[bob_torio]

The 28-135 IS lens is the first I bought to go with my 10D. It has served me well. Since then, I have added two L lenses. Yes, it is true the you do not have the sharpness over L glass, but it still is a good all around lens for me, at least until I can afford a 24-70L. Even with a 24-70L lens, I probably would keep the 28-135 for the IS capability. It has worked well for me in limited light-no flash situations.

[larry_underwood]

I think if you can't get a sharp 8X12 with this lens, it's time to go back to Photography 101 and stop blaming the lens.

[tommyinca]

I have no problem with my 28-135 IS. For my copy, it is very sharp from 28 to 60 mm wide open to f16. From 90mm on-ward, it likes to be stop down to f8. The IS also work for indoor/low light.

[wayne_yoshida1]

I've used this lens as my primary lens for years, almost since it was released. The 28-135 IS image quality is very good at most zoom lengths, but appears best at the wider end between f/8 and f/16. My sample is quite terrible in the corners at f/3.5 @ 28mm, so if you plan on shooting wide open all the time then I would look elsewhere. At narrower apertures, it seems to resolve well in the center, but with less contrast than a medium quality prime, so not quite as perceptively sharp. Corners never get quite as good as say the 50 f/1.8, but are probably fine unless you are taking pictures of newspaper or test targets.

 

Unfortunately, there is significant distortion at the wide end. Bad for architecture. For me "significant" means it is noticeable enough so I have to change my shooting habits to compensate. Keep pillars and doorways away from the frame edges. Also, f/5.6 @ 100mm is just not enough to get good background blur. It has limited "head-shot" type portrait potential.

 

My IS has never broken or malfunctioned, and it defines my shooting style with the lens. If you work with the lens for a while instead of running out and replacing it with an "L" lens in six months, then you can learn how to use IS; for instance, to take the shot at smaller aperture but breaking the 1/focal length rule.

 

For film users, this lens is one of the best tradeoffs between versatility, price, and image quality in Canon's line. Nobody ever said it was the best lens for any one of these attributes. Scale expectations accordingly.

 

Enjoy the lens, Suhas!

 

Wayne<div></div>

[andrew_buckley1]

I have had this lens for about 5 years having upgraded from a 28-105 and would say that it is a very capable lens if you work within its considerable limitations.

First at both the 28 and 135 end the lens distorts considerable and you will see a distinctly unnatural curvature in you verticals...therefore would not recommend you use it for architecture work.

Second, it is soft until around f8 when everyhting seems to come together.

Third as has been remarked it is slow at the long end so if you are doing candids you can expext at f5.6 to have some major distractions in the background.

 

In my case i finally grew tired of these limitations and have replaced it with 20 f2.8, 28 f1.8, 35 f2.0, 50 f1.4, 100 f2.0 and 135 f2.0L, all second hand.

In that exalted company though it unfortunately doesn't stand up I'm afraid.

My advice get a 50 f1.4 or f1.8 and an 85 f1.8 or 100 f2.0 and consider something wider possible the 20 f2.8(considered by some to be on the soft side) or the 24 f2.8.

 

Best of luck

Andrew

[fisher]

Just my two cents. I use this lens about two weeks ago and simply love it. This weeked will going to shot on the Budapest Parade it will be the first serious test.

So far I really happy with the IS, focus speed and sharpnes. Allrite, not as sharp as an L lens but don't forget it's price.

Anyway on a digital camera which are usually have a crop factor the 28 becomes ~45mm which is probably not wide enough for interior.

[brian_e]

I'm only comparing to lenses I've owned and used:

 

Image quality: better than the 28-105 (but bigger and heavier); not as good as 70-200/4 or 100/2.8 or 50/.18.

 

Versatility: superb for the price. Decent quality for a non-L, but this lens shines in that it is your "if I can bring only one lens" lens. The IS is great and the zoom range is perfect for sightseeing and casual photography.

 

Build quality: decent, better than 28-105 for example, but nothing like L lenses or the primes I have.

 

I don't know what you're looking for here, I'm just another numbskull giving you a review, not sure what else I can do - other than to tell you to rent one or buy one from a place that accepts returns and try it out.

[phyrpowr]

Judging by your subject matter, I assume you are a tripod-only (or at least mainly) shooter, and so I advise geting a 24-70L. I don't have this lens myself, the 28-135 being practically bolted to my 10D, as it was to the Rebel, Elans, and EOS 1N before it, but I'm a mainly non-tripod shooter.

 

The small (I think) amount of quality you give up with the 28-135 is more than made up by the IS, but if that's not going to be an issue, go for the L's, you get bragging rights to boot

[suhaskulkarni]

Thanks everyone for response!

 

I guess, my expectations were quite high... So now I come to know that it's a good lens - not a great lens and not a L class comparision...

I plan to use it always without a tripod - capturing the subjects that I mentioned during travel.

[bobatkins]

Here's my review comparing the 28-135, 28-105 and 28-90 lenses:

<p>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/28zooms/">http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/28zooms/</a>

<p>

Summary - it's a good lens, slightly better than the 28-105 (but bigger, heavier and more expensive) and much better than the low end consumer 28-90.